============================== CFJ 1222 ==============================
The message sent to the Business List by Elysion containing the text
'The Bank pays all its outstanding IAT POs' did not cause any
Transfer Orders to be exectuted.
Called by Kelly: 25 May 2000 03:12:56 GMT
Assigned to Crito: 25 May 2000 12:23:04 GMT
Judged FALSE by Crito: 31 May 2000 18:33:39 GMT
As argument I ask that the Judge consider the recent extensive debate
on what constitutes a message sufficient to convey the information
required to specify things like Votes, much of which will transfer to
the execution of Transfer Orders.
Judge Crito's Arguments:
First of all, I can dismiss the trivial case that there were no outstanding
IAT PO's at the time
of this message, since Elysion has provided me evidence that there was at
This brings us to the definition of a TO:
Rule 1598/8 (Power=1)
A Transfer Order is an Order requiring the Recordkeepor of a
Currency to note the transfer of units of that Currency from one
entity to another. A valid Transfer Order specifies exactly one
source entity, exactly one destination entity, exactly one
Currency, and a number of units of that Currency which is a
positive multiple of that Currency's MUQ.
At first glance, this seems to indicate that a TO message must explicitly
contain all of these elements. However, the word "specify" leaves room
for interpretation. Does "specify" mean explicitly stated or does an
indirect reference qualify as a specification? We have much game custom
to support the interpretation allowing indirect specification. "I pay ..."
has become a well entrenched synonym for "I execute a Transfer Order ...".
In particular, references to specific Payment Orders in this context have
consistently been taken to mean a Transfer Order that satisfies the specified
Payment Order. In other words, because a Payment Order itself specifies
a source, destination and number of units in a specific Currency, any
to that Payment Order is considered a specification of those things required
by R1598. This is unproblematic in the following situations:
1. Player presents a quote of an issued PO and states "I pay this". The
itself contains the required information (in the quote) and might even be
as a direct specification.
2. Player states "I pay PO X", where X is an accepted, unambiguous reference
a specific PO. Here the message does not explicitly contain the required
but the specification of a particular PO which does specify it can reasonably
interpreted as having satisfied R1598.
This brings us to the case at hand. Does a statement of the form "The Bank
outstanding POs" also satisfy R1598? First, does it succeed in making
references to specific POs? Well, I would have to say "yes". "All
is a well-defined set of specific POs. There is no ambiguity here. The fact
the Player making the statement may not have knowledge of the members of this
is irrelevant to whether or not e has specified the set. E has referred to a
specific, unambiguous set of POs, each member of which speficies exactly the
information required by R1598. If we are to allow cases 1 and 2 above, then,
absent legislation specifically preventing it, we must also allow the case
in question. IMO, game custom strongly supports the acceptance of 1 and 2,
therefore I am inclined to judge the CFJ FALSE.